I mean they should have given him credit. That’s what they owe him (all they owe him) under the MIT license.

This is an excellent policy position, if only the argumentation wasn’t dogshit. I am begging everyone even vaguely lib-left, stop writing like this. If you’re trying to write a petition, open letter, or public statement, for the love of god write it for people other than yourselves or just don’t say anything at all.

Internet censorship is bad for alphabet people, but it’s also bad for the straights. It’s bad for everyone. It’s just bad.

Freedom is for everyone. And Heritage wasn’t coming to the parade anyway.

The only org they call out by name is The Heritage Foundation.

I assumed that they were already skipping the parade.

1. Idgaf about China and what they do and you shouldn’t either, even if US paranoia about them is highly predictable.
2. Depending on the outputs it’s not always that transformative.
3. The moat would be good actually. The business model of LLMs isn’t good, but it’s not even viable without massive subsidies, not least of which is taking people’s shit without paying.

It’s a huge loss for smaller copyright holders (like the ones that filed this lawsuit) too. They can’t afford to fight when they get imitated beyond fair use. Copyright abuse can only be fixed by the very force that creates copyright in the first place: law. The market can’t fix that. This just decides winners between competing mega corporations, and even worse, up ends a system that some smaller players have been able to carve a niche in.

Want to fix copyright? Put real time limits on it. Bind it to a living human only. Make it non-transferable. There’s all sorts of ways to fix it, but this isn’t it.

ETA: Anthropic are some bitches. “Oh no the fines would ruin us, our business would go under and we’d never maka da money :*-(” Like yeah, no shit, no one cares. Strictly speaking the fines for ripping a single CD, or making a copy of a single DVD to give to a friend, are so astronomically high as to completely financially ruin the average USAian for life. That sword of Damocles for watching Shrek 2 for your personal enjoyment but in the wrong way has been hanging there for decades, and the only thing that keeps the cord that holds it up strong is the cost of persuing “low-level offenders”. If they wanted to they could crush you.

Anthropic walked right under the sword and assumed their money would protect them from small authors etc. And they were right.

As explained, it’s not even quite user identification, but rather verification of a unique individual. The ability to identify that an account is held by a unique person (as opposed to possibility being one of many puppet accounts) is pretty useful, particularly if it’s not possible to backtrace it to an otherwise identifiable person.

Even so, the problem I see with this system is that a person has to be careful to never, ever, ever associate their unique ID with themselves, though there will be constant pressure to do so.